Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946: s. 38(2) – Standing order stipulating the age of retirement of the employees, applicble to employees of the Co-operative Bank – Locus of Registered Trade Union to file application u/s. 38(2) for alteration/modification of the standing order – Held: Original standing order which mandated 55 years as the age of retirement, was changed by consent of both employer and employees, to 58 years, twice, by means of Settlements of 2004 and 2010 which culminated in an award by the Industrial Court – Ministerial duty of implementing the settlement was on both the employer and the employees – Application was moved before the Commissioner of Labour by the Registered Trade Union, which could and should have been joined in by the employer – Thus, any technical objection as to a registered union having no locus to file an application u/s. 38(2), cannot be accepted – Order passed by the Industrial Court, which was based on the locus standi of the Registered Trade Union, is set aside, as also the judgment of the High Court – Locus standi. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is clear that the original standing order which mandated 55 years as the age of retirement, was changed by consent of both employer and employees, to 58 years, not just once, but twice, by means of Settlements of 2004 and 2010, solemnly entered into under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. These settlements were also sanctified by an award of the Industrial Court. Ultimately, the Ministerial duty of implementing the settlement was on both the employer and the employees. It so happened that the appellant moved an application before the Commissioner of Labour. The said application could and should have been joined in by the employer, and in this backdrop, it is clear that any technical objection as to a registered union having no locus to file an application under Section 38(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the order that has been passed by the Industrial Court, which was only based on the locus standi of the appellant, is set aside and held that the Industrial Court ought to have given some teeth to its own Judgment and held that the very appeal which was filed before it be dismissed for the very good reason that the bank should not be allowed at the stage of implementation of two settlements (culminating in an award) solemnly entered into between itself and its employees, to now turn around and question the locus standi of the appellant. The judgment of the Industrial Court and, consequently, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Para 8][508-B-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.